ITYT Travel Forums  

Go Back   ITYT Travel Forums > Travel Companies & Programs > Airlines & Frequent Flier Programs > AirTran Airways (FL)
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-24-2003, 01:29 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Dbakers Anouncements

Dbaker wrote:

Quote:
Hi, folks.

I want to make sure that everyone is aware of the latest changes and additions to ITYT:




New: AirTran Airways | The Truth about Safety

Changed: TWA Forum removed from the forums

New: Rental Cars root photo gallery album

New: Archives | Moments in history archived in web pages.



Please shoot me an email if you have any archived web pages that should be included in the archive. I only have the Vanguard site for now, but you have to start somewhere. Additionally, I think it's a good time to start doing this given the current situation of the air travel industry.

Cheers.

Daniel
I still see on that page that you are still using the same airplane for several different incidents. Please be honest and change this. I know this post of your is a year old but lets be honest and write the truth. So change it.
__________________

B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2003, 05:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
ITYT Navigator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS [Austin, TX, USA]
Posts: 610
Send a message via AIM to Nugget
I still don't understand what the complaint is. What's inaccurate? What text would you like to see changed?
__________________

Nugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2003, 06:24 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
That's the Point

We know you don't understand, Nugget. That's the problem. Ummmm, what's inaccurate? How about the caption "...crashed missing part of it's fuselage" underneath a photo of a jet that never crashed missing part of it's fuselage. Get it?
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2003, 09:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
ITYT Navigator
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: AUS [Austin, TX, USA]
Posts: 610
Send a message via AIM to Nugget
OK, great. I've fixed the error. Thanks. It's always our goal to make sure that information is presented accurately, and you're right, that incident was not technically a crash. From the NTSB accident brief:

Quote:
As ValuJet Flight 597 began its takeoff roll, a 'loud Bang' was heard by the occupants, the right engine fire warning light illuminated, the crew of a following airplane reported to the ValuJet crew that the right engine was on fire, and the takeoff was rejected. Shrapnel from the right engine penetrated the fuselage and the right engine main fuel line, and a cabin fire erupted. The airplane was stopped on the runway, and the captain ordered evacuation of the airplane. A flight attendant (F/A) received serious puncture wounds from shrapnel and thermal injuries; another F/A and 5 passengers received minor injuries. Investigation revealed that an uncontained failure of the right engine had occurred due to fatigue failure of its 7th stage high compressor disc. The fatigue originated at a stress redistribution hole in the disc. Analysis of fatigue striation measurements indicated that the fatigue crack had originated before the disc was last overhauled at a repair station (Turk Hava Yollari) in 1991, but was not detected. Also, investigation of the repair station revealed evidence concerning a lack of adequate recordkeeping and a failure to use 'process sheets' to document the step-by-step overhaul/inspection procedures. (See NTSB/AAR-96/03 for additional information)
It seems that a lack of adequate maintenance and recordkeeping led to an engine explosion and subsequent cabin fire. But the plane didn't "crash".
Nugget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2003, 10:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GUM
Posts: 136
Picky, picky, picky.

It’s possible that the flight attendant (F/A) with serious puncture wounds from shrapnel and thermal injuries together with the other F/A and 5 passengers who received minor injuries don’t really much care one way or the other now that it has been clarified that there was no crash. I wouldn’t.

On the other hand, was there not a crashing noise as various parts penetrated the fuselage? Did no one say that stuff came crashing in? That is how I might have described it.

n :a serious accident (Maybe it isn’t considered serious.)

n :a loud noise (As compared to what?)

v :move violently; as through a barrier (Is the fuselage a barrier?)

v :break violently or noisily; smash (It was gentle and quiet?)

v :hurl or thrust violently (How did the shrapnel get in?)

Lacking a precise definition of crash, perhaps we should all establish "incident" as an all-inclusive description for preventable events that should not have happened.

And who are we to presume to accept the inference of less than optimum maintenance made by the NTSB rather than multiple postings by “two skilled aircraft technicians” and other "truth defenders" anyway?

Glad to hear an airline is making money. Hopefully that is not at the expense of adequate maintenance.

Bad things happen to good airlines but they are likely happen more often to bad ones. Let’s see what the future brings.
merchanb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 12:08 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Nice Try

Oh, I'm well aware of the deatails of that event Nugget. So well aware that I knew the photo wasn't any sort of "crash" like you and dbaker were making it out to be. In fact, I posted a nearly identical account of the incident on another thread many weeks ago. And that post was from my overall familiarity with and knowledge of the incident, not any one particular article or report. As such, you're welcome to read that post wherever it may reside and you'll come to the healthy conclusion that I might just know what I'm talking about

But you still list another photo of that same incident lower down on the page as being a ValuJet/AirTran aircraft, when in fact it was a ValuJet aircraft only and not an AirTran aircraft whatsoever. The two airlines hadn't yet merged at the time. I imagine AirTran was pretty upset when they realized ValuJet stole one of their DC-9s (of which they had none) from Orlanda and tore it up in Atlanta. Especially since AirTran flew 737s at the time, not DC-9s. The deception continues

Let's see how many months it takes you to correct that one. Or correct the lie about AirTran's "ancient fleet." Until all the lies and deception are corrected on that page, you and dbaker have no credibility with me and shouldn't with any other objective visitors to this site.
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 12:36 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
We've Got Oursleves a Comedian

So how's that working out for you merchanb, being clever? All seriousness aside, I'm quite the humor fan myself and you are slightly funny, even a tad enjoyable. Did you learn the condescension from dbaker and nugget? Because you need to work on it a little bit more, not quite as high on your horse as those two.

Picky? You bet I'm picky when it comes to flying. That's why I never dared fly ValuJet but I fly AirTran almost exclusively. Specifics are very important in aviation, and anyone with a pulse could see right through dbaker's intentions with that caption under that photo. There are three very deliberate and intentional things going on with those photos: dbaker is trying to give the impression that they're all seperate incidents when in fact they are just one, he was trying to describe a different angle of the photo as a "crash" which it wasn't, and he lists AirTran's name along with ValuJet's under one caption to give readers the impression that it was AirTran when in fact it wasn't. He's attempting to give the impression that ValuJet had more incidents than it actually had, had more crashes than the one it had, and that AirTran was in some way involved in those incidents which is wasn't. There's an agenda. If you can't see right through those blatant intentions then I've got some land in Nevada I'd like to sell you, radiation free

No one is questioning the severity, seriousness, or violence of that ValuJet incident. I'm glad that nothing like that has ever happened at AirTran. And since the FAA has awarded AirTran the coveted Diamond Award for safety, training, and maintenance three times since 1998, I'm confident that it never will. Those two mechanics you refer to work for AirTran, they didn't work for ValuJet. And one of them is a pilot. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe a GA pilot/AirTran technician who's actually down there in the trenches keeping those shiny new 717s in the air day in and day out than I am a frequent flier from Texas who's never flown on AirTran. :P
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 09:08 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Here are the problems:
dbaker footnote to the first picture.
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9-32, tail number N908VJ, on fire, with evacuation slides deployed sitting on ATL runway 27R
This footnote is correct.

dbaker footnote to the 2nd picture:
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9-32, tail number N904VJ, after insufficient maintenance led to an engine explosion and cabin fire during takeoff
This is incorrect. This is a picture of the same plane from another angle after the fire was put out. The problem with the engine was from a Turkish overhaul center. They missed the corrosion on the compressor disk. So not us or the FAA knew about this. After the investigation found out what had caused the engine failure the FAA revoked the FAA repairstaion certificate from Turkish Airways and they are no longer allowed to work on any american carriers aircraft. This engine was overhauled before we even bought the aircraft form turkish airways. That engine had serveral hundred hours on it before we bought it. You say insufficient maintenance, well after all this came to light, We (ValuJet) removed all engines that were overhauled in turkey immediately and replaced them with engines over hauled from AeroThust in MIA. Now that is the facts and the truth. One more thing. This is not able to be dectected by borescope either, because 7th stage is one of the stages that can't be looked at through a borescope. It is the First stage of the high pressure compressor (N2) on the JT8D-9A.

dbakers fottnote to the 3rd picture:
Quote:
ValuJet DC-9, burning out of control on an Atlanta runway.
This is correct only to one extent, It is burning out of control, but it is still the same aircraft as in picture 1 and 2. baker is making this seem like these 3 pictures are 3 different airplanes.


dbakers footnote to picture #5
Quote:
ValuJet/AirTran DC-9 after an uncontained engine failure
Once again this is the same airplane 908VJ this picture was taken in the hangar after the plane was moved. This picture shows where the 7th stage compressor disk came out of the engine and cowling. This happened in June of 95. Two years before the AirTran merger. So the ValuJet/AirTran DC-9 part of the caption is completly misleading and an outright lie.

So mr. baker and nugget, these are the outright lies and misleading information that we speak of. Now please tell me you do not understand our problems with this. Now after the facts are in front of you if you do in fact run a repituble web site , then I am sure you will make the changes imediately.
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 10:15 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: MSP
Posts: 1
Dbakers Anouncements

So you're not disputing that AirTran has had recent fires - you're just saying that THOSE picture were all from the same fire and that they should try to find pictures of the OTHER fires?
sdave001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 10:46 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Yes we have had fires! Not as many as dbaker and others claim. We have had 1 fire as ValuJet result from an uncontained engine failure. 2 as Airtran both on DC-9's. the one in Greensboro was from a stuck cross tie relay. The other one here in Atlanta was from a cordless curling Iron in a passengers bag. Emergency landings for smoke smell or electrical smell does not constitute a fire. Recent fires no! How recent are you talking about?
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 02:27 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
Hey sdave! I refuse to go through every single one of these conversations with all the new members of the forum. Please read some of the older forums on us and you will see exactly what myself, b717, and mr. haze have said and not said. So before you try to start this back up by telling us what did and didnt happen GO READ, because B717 and I are here and we work for AirTran, we know the truth. So if you want the truth just ask, dont try to fall into the Dbaker, nugget.......and so on list.
Now back to you Mr. Nugget....
Quote:
The reality is that AirTran Airways constantly has fires, engine failures, electrical failures, and other serious and major safety hazards.
this sentence is incorrect, please state the facts or proof!
Quote:
AirTran is a low-cost, no-frills airline that has a corporate culture of being unsafe due to careless maintenance and an ancient fleet.
Careless maintenance???????I think not.....ancient fleet???? almost 70 brand new boeing 717's and only 4 dc-9s????? cant figure that out. Even at the time of your posting the page the info is incorrect, please update your site.
Quote:
A large portion of AirTran's fleet are DC-9 aircraft from third-world countries (Turkey, etc.). Many of these aircraft have been involved in numerous serious incidents that make the overall safety of day-to-day operations extremely questionable.
wrong again!!!! I believe you know what the facts are here.
Quote:
DC-9's comprise a portion of AirTran's fleet and AirTran's record with the 717 has been just as abysmal.
Still no facts here, udate your site, and I want proof on our 717 record there chief....by the way Boeing comes to us when they want to know about the 717. lol
Quote:
In the two years prior to the crash of ValuJet 592, that aircraft had eight major incidents that either required an aborted takeoff or emergency landing. Two of those were on the same day and unrelated to eachother.
proof, the peolpe want facts not your opinion, and by the way I can assure you that not every aborted take-off or emergeny landing is a "MAJOR INCIDENT". If a specific system goes out on an Airplane then it has backups, but the flight crew just wants priority at the airport.
Quote:
Additionally, the ValuJet manuals do not have the Douglas DC-9 Flightcrew emergency procedure for removing smoke from the cabin during flight. Northwest Airlines, US Airways, and Midwest Express Airlines DC-9 pilot's handbook include this procedure
This is just so funny I had to see were you got this info from. lol
I'll let you start with what we have given you, then we'll let you know if it is correct yet.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2003, 02:44 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
hey nugget, once you straighten that out we will talk about your lists of "accident and incident history". Thanks for being so co-operative in these matters. I'm sure the readers of ITYT will appreciate all the accurate info and facts that they will recieve.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 08:56 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Okay nugget there you have it. ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH YOUR SO CALLED FACTS. You asked for it, now change it or prove all of us wrong. Wait I think I hear your keyboard typing a retraction. I offer you and dbaker a challenge. Fly AirTran just once and see for yourself. Come to Atlanta and see me and jetmech717 let us show you around. Then you can see our operation and how things work around here. Then you can make your own decision after you have been here.
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2003, 11:22 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
Almost 4 days have gone by and no reply. Why won't you and dbaker change the FACTS of your warning page?????
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2003, 03:58 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 11
Just a little something related.....

I sent DBaker an email and told straight up that he knew as well as I do that he is trying to smear the airline with thoses four pictures, among other things and asked him what his real reason for all of this is.

That has been 9 days ago, and no response at all. Very intersting for someone who supposidly checks his emal daily.
FLAir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2003, 07:33 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Kinda Fishy

Similarly, when I first started posting here I claimed there was an ongoing coordinated effort between dbaker and nugget to smear AirTran for some unkown reason. Most of the responses to my claim were along the lines of "keep fighting those windmills, haze" and other ridiculous things of that nature.

Now that the entire vibe of this site has been proactively altered by myself, b717mech, jetmech717, and yourself, one of my favorite things to do is remind them just how ludicrous those jabs sound now that we've backed up our data and exposed them. It's just funny to me that dbaker and nugget are from Texas and the two airlines they rave about are Continental (Houston) and Southwest (Dallas).

I've got a feeling AirTran should be flattered really, they're only going after their head because they're afraid AirTran will hurt Continental's and Southwest's bottom line. But Continental and Southwest are dandy airlines and are doing just fine, there's room for Southwest AND AirTran (not to mention JetBlue, Frontier, etc) if they all play their cards right. Fierce competition is king!
haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2003, 11:54 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle,WA (SEA) Terminal S, and CO B gates.
Posts: 238
I've really got to hand it to the AirTran employee's on this site.
NWgoldelite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2003, 06:54 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 99
NWgoldelite said:
Quote:
I've really got to hand it to the AirTran employee's on this site.
Why is that?
B717mech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2003, 09:18 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Atlanta Hartsfield Int. Airport
Posts: 170
NWGoldelite said:
Quote:
I've really got to hand it to the AirTran employee's on this site.
I appreciate that NW, I remember when I first stumbled accross this web site and you were the only one who looked at things from both sides and always gave AirTran a chance. Wish you were here on a couple more of the conversations, but I'm sure you read them and cought up by now. It appears now that everything is pretty good here now and people see the truth. Even Baker, nugget, and the others seem to understand that in aviation anything can happen to airline at any given time. All thats left now is to talk to nugget about the warning page on a few more details to iron out. Thanks again
Oh and thanks Nugget for the compliment on the tailpipe tread.
jetmech717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2003, 09:19 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ATL
Posts: 267
Not Me

As my signature on every post states: I'm not an employee of AirTran Airways, just a very satisfied customer and shareholder
__________________

haze is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.



Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0